Andrew Sullivan writes:

My gut reaction to the news that the self-righteous narcissist, Ralph Nader, will be running for president as an “Independent” is to demand that he cease and desist despoiling a perfectly respectable political position. He’s not an independent. He’s a far-left, paranoid Democrat who delights only in hurting his own party.

I don’t disagree with the substance of Sullivan’s criticism about Nader. But as to trying to claim some ideological of philosophical content for the word “independent,” I still don’t buy it. Contrary to what Sullivan, Lee Harris and others seem to think, there really is nothing substantive to being an independent. I’ve met — and certainly received email from — lots of self-described “indepenents” who hold positions which could be called everything from Naderite to Buchananite to ultra-libertarian etc.

If you want to call yourself a moderate or a centrist, that’s cool. But to suggest that only independents are in the “sensible center” is simply not true. Independent is a vanity label which includes everybody who considers himself or herself outside the authority of philisophical or political labels, and is therefore, largely meaningless when it comes to substantive first principles.